Alexa Heupel, Mickey Martin, and Madelaine MomotWRIT 1133: Research WritingProfessor Matt Hill

NOT SO DIFFERENT AFTER ALL: Examining thE StErEotypE of CollEgE athlEtES

19VOLUME 4

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the social perceptions and academic performance among students at the University of Denver (DU). The study focuses on three specific groups within

the DU student population: Division 1 athletes, club athletes, and non-athletes. Our research methods include twenty-one interviews, analysis

of the grade point averages (GPAs) of all three groups, and inquiry about the socially exclusive image projected by Division 1 DU athletes. Our findings suggest that athletes surpass non-ath-letes in academic performance; however, club

athletes prove to be the strongest in academic performance. In the social context, the respons-es from all three groups verified the stereotypical

cliquish tendencies of student athletes. As former high school athletes, we are sen-

sitive to the social and academic stigma that plagues the athletic community here at the Uni-versity of Denver (DU). This stigma suggests that student athletes are socially exclusive and

unenthusiastic about their education. However,

as we are no longer active participants in ath-letics, we now identify more with the solely ac-ademic students. Having experienced both sides of the position, we could not help but notice

reluctance for student athletes and non-athletic students to interact with one another. Whether

this reluctance is intentional or unintentional, it is evident that there is a strong divide amid the DU student body. Upon noticing the division, we began investigating the validity of our obser-vations. Although we are focusing specifically on

the DU student population, our research findings

should be of interest to any college community, as our project provides insight and collective un-derstanding into the social and academic lives of university students. Furthermore, through our research, we hope to erase the boundaries that

divide the student body at DU and add to exist-ing research already on the rifts between college

athletics and academics.

The idea for our essay evolved from an observation the three of us shared. We all noticed that there seemed to be a divide between the athletes and the non-athletes on the DU campus, but we were unsure if this divide was intentionally created and promulgated or if it was rather an unintended byproduct of the conditions of college athletics.

We are particularly proud of our groups findings because we feel as though they portray

collegiate athletes in a new light that encourages a reimagining of stereotypes within this student population. In essence, we decided to research a topic that not only interested us but is relevant when trying to understand the dynamics of diverse student populations in college.

Alexa Heupel /photo provided by author

20 WRIT LARGE: 2015

REVIEW OF THE LITERATUREIn a 2013 study published in the Journal of College Student Development, Deborah Feltz and her col-leagues interviewed 318 Division I, II, and III

student athletes from eleven collegiate athlet-ic programs. According to the results, athletes whose identities were deeply rooted in their

sports tended to have inferior performance in the classroom because their focus was monopolized

by practice, games, and team obligations (186).

In addition, the authors found that a coachs ac-ademic expectations play an important role in the student athletes classroom success. Expecta-tions include academic incentives such as main-taining a certain GPA to remain eligible to be on the team. The research showed that other con-trol variables such as divisional status and type of sport did not impact the threat of a stereotype (197). In our research, we interviewed club ath-letes in order to juxtapose the results with the

results of our interviews with Division I athletes.

Similar to Feltz et al., Herbert D. Simons

Alexa is a junior from Eden Prairie, Min-nesota. Because reading and writing have always been two of her passions, she chose to double major in English and history. She loves studying the past in or-der to understand how the present came to be. Alexas favorite DU experience, so

far, is getting the opportunity to take Pro-fessor Tayana Hardins African American

Literature course.

and Derek Van Rheenen consider the role of four non-cognitive variables in predicting ac-ademic performance (167). In Non-cogni-tive Predictors of Student Athletes Academic Performance, Simons and Van Rheenen build from E.E. Snyders four classifications of stu-dent athletes for their own study of Berkeley

students. Snyders four classifications include the

scholar-athlete, the pure scholar, the pure ath-lete, and the non-scholar/non-athlete, with each

group representing a different level of dedication to athletics and academics. Upon finishing the

study, Simons and Van Rheenen found that there is a correlation between academic success and

athletic performance. When athletes are able to

satisfy academic expectations, they can expect to execute their athletic talents and responsibilities more productively; Simons and Van Rheenen note that [i]n fact, some student athletes actu-ally do better academically when their sport is

in season (178). We predicted that Simons and

Van Rheenens correlation between time com-mitments and academic performance would play

a key role in understanding our own findings.

However, because our sample included athletes

from different levels of competition, not only Division 1, we recognized that our results might

have a different outcome from the original study.

METHODSIn conducting our study, we hoped to learn about

campus dynamics and social interactions in the DU student population. Specifically, we wanted

to investigate non-athletes general perception of Division I student athletes in both social and academic settings. We sought to explore the

dumb-jock theory and see if there is any truth behind the concept. Furthermore, we wanted to

see if the classification of athlete and non-athlete

subsequently affected each groups social interac-tions and academic performance. Prior to our re-search, we assumed there would be a clear social

division between the athletes and non-athletes.

We also believed the athletes would perform at

a lower academic level in comparison to their

peers who were not Division I athletes. Our two

assumptions were based on our personal experi-ences, our knowledge of non-athletes complaints

that teachers favor athletes and give them special privileges, and the way the media and popular

21VOLUME 4

culture portray the stereotypical jock, such as the depiction of the athlete Andrew Clark in the

iconic film The Breakfast Club. To understand fur-ther and perhaps bridge the gap between athletes

and non-athletes, we interviewed club athletes as

well. We realized the stark contrast in time com-mitments between athletes and non-athletes, so

we thought that introducing a third intermedi-ary group would provide more context and data

when we compared our results.

We interviewed seven Division I athletes, sev-en club athletes, and seven non-athlete students at DU with a set interview protocol (see Appendix A on page 70 for a full list of interview questions). The interviews began with six general questions that

were posed to each group; however, once each

student identified with a certain group, they were

asked a set of questions specific to their classi-fication. For example, after we determined that

students were an athlete, we then asked them

eight questions regarding their experience as a student athlete. Furthermore, we asked club ath-letes five questions specific to their experience

and level of involvement in the club. Finally, we

asked students who identified as non-athletes six

questions about their lives as non-athletes at DU. We based our questions on our preconceived no-tions surrounding the stereotype of student ath-letes. The concluding question of the interviews

asked whether there is any truth to the stereo-type behind student athletes being less focused on academics when compared to their non-ath-lete peers and whether student athletes tend to

be more socially exclusive. We hoped this ques-tion would provide the most insight and depth

into understanding the different perspectives non-athletes have of athletes.

Our goal with the twenty-one subjects we

interviewed was to represent a wide array of Di-vision I sports and club sports offered at DU. In regards to the non-athlete subjects, we tried to

find a combination of students who do and do

not participate in extracurricular activities such as Greek life and other on-campus clubs, as we

wanted our sample to encompass as much of the

student body at DU as possible. Our age group ranged from 18 years old to early 20s. We thought

age would be an important factor to consider as

some athletes, specifically hockey players, stay

in school longer in order to play another year. In addition, for all three groups, we sought to

diversify the subjects further by interviewing a

relatively equal number of females and males.

Perspectives Jeff Smith / Shutterstock.com

As former high school athletes, we are sensitive to the social

and academic stigma that plagues the athletic community

here at the University of Denver (DU). This stigma suggests

that student athletes are socially exclusive and unenthusiastic

about their education.

Mickey Martin /photo provided by author

22 WRIT LARGE: 2015

RESULTSTo organize the twenty-one interviews, we first

divided them into three categories: athlete, club athlete, and non-athlete. After doing so, we be-gan by simply comparing the seven student ath-lete interviews to each other. Then, we followed

the same procedure for both the club athlete and non-athlete categories. Once we made the inter-nal comparisons, we then studied each group in

contrast to one another. Following this approach,

the interviews we conducted both support and

refute our original hypothesis. Asking for the participants GPAs proved to be a particularly important and revealing question. We chose to

average the GPAs of each group and then com-pare the results. Our findings include a 3.62 GPA

average for club athletes, 3.36 GPA average for

athletes, and 3.34 GPA average for non-athletes. We were rather surprised by the outcome because

we anticipated the average GPA for athletes to

be much lower than non-athletes given that the

Mickey is from Colorado Springs, Colo-rado, and transferred to the University of Denver from Belmont University in Nash-ville, Tennessee. He is a sophomore pur-suing a major in film studies and produc-tion and a minor in history. Mickey enjoys watching movies and traveling the world, and he hopes to one day explore every continent. His favorite DU memory is go-ing to his first hockey game and experi-encing the school spirit all around him; it was wild.

minimum GPA to play on a Division I team is a 2.0, according to the National Collegiate Athlet-ic Association (NCAA) requirements. Also, we

expected the time commitment for practice and gamesespecially away gameswould nega-tively impact the GPA of athletes based on the assumption that they miss more class and have less time to dedicate to schoolwork. For instance,

one subject who plays Division I hockey at DU

explained that he has practice Monday through Thursday from noon until four. Furthermore, he said, Fridays and Saturdays I basically devote entirely to our games. We have a pre-game skate

in the morning on both days and then a meal and nap. Then, we go to the rink for the game. When

we are on the road, we travel all of Thursdays

and Sundays too. This revelation was not uncommon among

the other athletes we interviewed. We found that

being an athlete essentially eliminated Thursday through Sunday as possible days for studying. Upon discovering this information, we found

it even more odd that the athletes had a higher GPA when compared to the non-athletes. How-ever, we quickly began to gather a better under-standing that other factors played a prominent role in their academic success. Such contribu-tions include free tutoring services, early regis-tration to accommodate their athletic schedules, and academic advisers specific to DU athletes.

In addition, one lacrosse player revealed that his coach has personal academic requirements for his players: [There is] mandatory study hall based on your GPA. Under 3.0 GPA, six hours are required, and for a 3.0-3.3 GPA, three hours

When athletes are able to satisfy

academic expectations, they can expect

to execute their athletic talents and

responsibilities more productively.

23VOLUME 4

are required. We came to the conclusion that

this extra requirement provides more academic accountability for the mens lacrosse team in par-ticular. While most athletic teams here do have

obligatory study hall hours, the lacrosse coach introduces an incentive for his players by deter-mining the required hours based on their GPAs. Based on the fact that athletes have more aca-demic services provided to them while non-ath-letes are accountable for their own performance,

it becomes easier to fathom how athletes and

non-athletes have such similar GPAs. Out of the three groups interviewed, club

athletes had the highest GPA. While this was

initially surprising, we found that both student

athletes and club athletes mentioned the im-portance of balancing athletics and academics. This idea of balance seemed most utilized by the club-athlete population because the responsibil-ities as both a student and athlete required time management. It is important to note that Divi-sion I athletes do manage their time; however,

through our interviews of the club athletes, it

was revealed that practice was not mandatorya

clear contrast to the obligations of a Division I athlete. Regardless, our findings invalidate the

dumb-jock stereotype since the athletic pop-ulation we interviewed performed at the same

academic level as non-athletes. Nonetheless, the

exceptionally high GPA average of club athletes did complicate our original assumptions.

DISCUSSION Understanding the social aspect of the athletic community at DU proved to be far easier than analyzing their academic performance. We asked

each group about the socially exclusive stereo-type cast on athletes. Overall, each group tended to both disagree and agree with the stereotype. In

essence, athletes, club athletes, and non-athletes all recognized that the DU athletic community is socially exclusive to some extent. However, each

group came to the defense of the selective bond of Division I athletes. One athlete justified the

exclusivity when he said,

We spend time with other athletes because

its fun to spend time with other kids who

are motivated in the similar ways that we

are. Its inspiring in a way. Also Ive been

ridiculed by some of my friends who are

non-athletes when Im too tired or havent

finished my school workbecause of my

practice scheduleand cant go out with

them. Athletes understand the time com-mitment and respect when Im in that sit-uation.

All groups agreed that student athletes collective understanding and mutual respect they share for one another might explain the exclusive commu-nity they establish. Non-athletes admitted that

they do not entirely grasp the athletic culture, which might rationalize the invisible barrier that

separates the athletic and non-athletic commu-nities at DU.

In conclusion, the information we compiled

from the twenty-one interviews rejected the

dumb jock stereotype but supported the stig-ma surrounding athletes as socially exclusive. Our assumption that athletes perform at a sig-nificantly lower academic level proved to be un-true, since their GPA average was similar to, and

.02 higher than, non-athletes. Based on the ath-letic population we interviewed, we concluded

that the Division I athletes at DU exceed the aca-demic standards required by the NCAA. Howev-er, we realize the validity of our results is limited

because our subjects do not represent the entire DU student body. For example, we interviewed

twenty-one students out of a total student pop-ulation of over 6,000. Additionally, although we

did try to interview students involved in various

sports and clubs with different academic stand-ings, the results we gathered simply cannot be

generalized to the entire DU community. One non-athletes response embodied the essence of

Aspen Photo / Shutterstock.com

24 WRIT LARGE: 2015

our overall findings:

I do think theres some truth to athletes being less dedicated to academics because school is not just about grades to athletes. I believe that being in college students dont necessarily have to have a focus on gradessome come for sports, some come for grades, and some come to travel and ex-perience a new state. School doesnt have

to be about grades and a high GPA for ev-eryone. People on athletic teams tend to be more socially exclusive because they spend several hours a day together, so they inevi-tably become each others support systems.

In the end, we found that there is a general un-derstanding and acceptance among athletes, club athletes, and non-athletes in regards to both the academic and social structures at DU.

Madelaine is from Orange County, Califor-nia, and came to the University of Denver to experience the great location, different lifestyle, and premier programs. She is currently a sophomore majoring in inter-national business with a minor in interna-tional studies and communication. When she has the opportunity, Madelaine loves to experiment in the kitchen, explore the outdoors, and travel. She also loves the sense of school spirit at the sports events on campus.Madelaine Momot /

LP Picard

WORKS CITED

Feltz, Deborah L., Seunghyun Hwang, Richard Schneider, and Nikolaus J. Skogsberg. Predictors of Collegiate Stu-

dent athletes Susceptibility to Stereotype Threat. Journal of College Student Development 54.2 (2013): 184201. Print.

Simons, Herbert D., and Derek Van Rheenen. Noncognitive Predictors of Student Athletes Academic Perfor-

mance. Journal of College Reading and Learning 30.2 (2000): 16781. Print.